Red_State_Blue
Reflections on a House Divided
Towards an American way of giving.
The recent hurricanes and their aftermaths brought home once more the lesson that, when all else fails, or even when they don't, the American people themselves fill the breach very-well-thank-you. Perhaps if that fact was better appreciated and taken into account more fully, in many other facets of our civic lives as well as emergencies, we might be both safer and more free.
Please see RealPoliticsArticle after commentary,
One of the factors that has moved me further from what has come to be termed “Liberalism” in this country over the last couple of decades is the growing conviction that there are facets of the particularly American way of measuring and mixing the elements of a constitutional, representative, republic, based on a conception of natural rights - that are of great value - and so well worth preserving against the temptation to “reform” them in the image of the type of social-welfare state so typical of the rest of the developed world. I believe that in that domain in particular – social welfare policy - it is evident that - instead of making best use of the natural generosity, and common sense of the American people – by extending and refining the institutions they had developed, nurtured and tended, on their own - organically – practitioners and theorists in the helping professions, and social sciences have insisted – relentlessly – on trying to reproduce key elements of the “Euro Model” in one form or another. And in their pursuit of these goals they have too-often exhibited a studied distain for the values, institutions and intensions of those who were expected to foot the bills for these projects. The results of this kind of intrusive, condescension on a proud people were predictable – an angry rejection of what seemed an attack on their basic culture – which left some of them amenable to the ideas of those extremists who argued against the very idea of charity as a moral value, i.e. that “greed is good.”
Thankfully though, the trend towards economic solipsism passed quickly enough, and the natural impulses have been reasserted. Giving became the norm again – led as usual by those of faith. So then the opportunity for an approach to the problem of aiding the poor based on a particularly American perspective is still an active possibility.
I laid out the bare outline of what I believe to be the fundamental distinctions between the American and European approaches to aid in a short reply made to a letter sent to me by a very active Conservative, where he had expressed strong feelings on a series of topics ranging from “political-correctness,” to welfare fraud, and lax immigration policies. In my reply I spoke of the difference between Conservative and Liberal perspectives on social welfare – but I believe that one can replace those labels with “American” and “European,” with little lose of applicability.
Another note: I’m not a Christian - nor do I play one TV – but particularly in this area – help to others - I’ve found much in that element of our common Western Judaic-Christian tradition which clearly and concisely, articulates principles common to both faiths – a fact which, of course, should come as no surprise to any familiar with their histories. And, as so many of those who I correspond to are Christians – to whom such phrases often convey most vividly the meanings I’m trying express to them - and I am secure enough in the grounding I have in my own faith to feel that such usages in no way constatutes an incident of its compromise - I feel no compunctions about doing so. This is not though in any way an apology, but simply a clarification – to any who may be puzzled in that regards – as to where it is I am coming from.
(Some slight changes have been made from the original)
I'm glad that there's some real awareness and concern about these issues. But, we can't afford to throw out babies with this bathwater [i.e. welfare fraud]. There really are people who've gotten run over by the freight-train of life, through no (or little) fault of their own, and so deserve the same help the Samaritan Gave Jesus under like circumstances. This includes some folks whose hurt doesn't show up as clearly as a white cane or an empty shirt-sleeve. There are brain disorders - like epilepsy and severe depression - that are as real as real can be. And sadly enough, in the case of the later, it's often hard to tell the truly afflicted from those who just want to kick back. So, I have no clear solution for making those distinctions except the circumspect judgment of those who know the person, and those who both know the illness and understand that not everyone who claims to be disabled is being honest about it.
There are other important differences though between what I think of as a conservative approach to helping the poor, and that of liberals. First off, Peter's words on this are still the best - you do most good when you help someone to stand as much on their own feet as they can - I.e. when you teach them to fish instead of giving them a fish for one day’s meal. Second, Obligations run both ways - from those who help to get other back on their feet - but also from those being helped – for them to try and get back on their feet. Third, there's no shame in wealth gotten honestly, and people don't owe others as atonement for being well off. A poor person has just as much obligation to help a wealthy person whose in a sorry situation - e.g. being lost in a bad neighbourhood, as the wealthy to help the poor to try and better themselves. And finally, although it's not likely that we can do all that needs being done in these without some role by government on different levels - state, local, even federal - we should try and do as much as we can through peoples own voluntary efforts. We're supposed to do good, not just vote to make others pay to do good. It's also the relationships of mutual aid that builds real and lasting communities - the kind where people can trust their neighbours and where kids are safe to play on the street. And, it's also true that these private efforts have often done better for all concerned. 40 years ago most hospital and clinic care was provided by private none-for-profits - mostly with religious connections, and poor people could rely on getting decent care from them at costs they could afford. Now after 40 years of Medicare and Medicaid we have a mess on our hands because of the rampant inflation these programs have caused. There was a real need to extend the efforts of the teaching hospitals to areas and populations where they didn't extend - and the government could have helped with the seed money for that. But, the system wasn't broken, and didn't need to be replaced - just expanded.
From: realclearpolitics.com
Katrina, What Went Right
By Lou Dolinar
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-9_15_05_LD.html
(C) David Aronin 2005
Recent Comments